Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: You make the call: Pollard v. Ridley, 2013 rules

Originally Posted by inexplicable

For perspective, Andrew Siciliano on NFL Network reported that the NFL coaches were informed that, in the committee's opinion, in week 17 of the 2012 season there were only "5 or 6" cases where a penalty flag should have been thrown on a running back for leading with the helmet.

It sounds to me like this penalty is only intended to be used rarely (but, effectively, we're all speculating until week 1 of next year).

Re: You make the call: Pollard v. Ridley, 2013 rules

Originally Posted by Shas

Me too. Which is why I posted the example with Ridley and Pollard. Would you say Ridley is in the open field? He's past the line of scrimmage, at the second level, getting hit by the safety, the position so-named because he is the last line of defense. So, is this in the open field? Is Ridley intentionally delivering a blow with the crown of his helmet?

Very ambiguous, I'd say.

I'd say that he def not is in the open field, but I might be wrong. It's an awful rule.

Re: You make the call: Pollard v. Ridley, 2013 rules

Originally Posted by LukeDaniel

I'd say that he def not is in the open field, but I might be wrong. It's an awful rule.

Well, it was first and ten on the forty and contact is made at the forty-five. If three yards or more is the standard for open field, then he's right at that mark when he spots Pollard and seems to consciously go at him and lower his head.

That's why I concluded that it looks like a textbook case of what they are referring to as a penalty under the new rule. It wouldn't be among the five or six that were noted to have occurred in Week 17 (or by Week 17) because it was in the playoffs.

Still, imagine the outcry in New England if its a penalty and a fumble.

By the way, the Bengals were the only team to vote against the new rule and they also determined that these calls would not be renewable. So in this case I guess (??) the fumble is automatically going to get reviewed, but when they are looking at that they won't be able to look at the unsportsmanlike call that would have gone against Ridley (at least as I imagine it).

Re: You make the call: Pollard v. Ridley, 2013 rules

Originally Posted by Bigfish

Funny, this passed and the tuck rule was reversed. I can see this has being detrimental to enjoying a football game as we've grown to love. The game is evolving into something less desirable and this could tip the scales for many fans. Boxing is getting it from MMA now and football is setting itself up for losing fans.

I don't care where you are on the field, a running back is gonna lower his head. Football 101.

They are changing the game too much. They pretty much just made running backs obsolete. I wonder how much cap space would be saved by cutting Ray Rice? His penalties will vastly outnumber his TD's. And don't worry about retooling the D Line either. You can cut Ngata too. You don't need big bodies to block up the middle - just wait for the flag. All you need on Defense is pass rushers who can hit the QB between the waist and the chest and DB's.

A running back lowering his head is basic and fundamental to the game of football.
They have gone too far.

If you break the rules you can't make the rules.
- Remove Coach Tomlin from the NFL Competition committee.

Re: You make the call: Pollard v. Ridley, 2013 rules

Originally Posted by Brien Jackson

I don't necessarily agree with the rule change, but this argument against making changes doesn't really work because it's obviously self-perpetuating. That is: you never change because the current crop of players has always done thing one (wrong) way...which means that every other generation to come along learns it the wrong way too and, hey, can't change it then either.

I hear what you are saying and I agree in theory, but lowering your head as a running back is one of the only ways to protect yourself while holding onto the ball with both hands and it's a natural reaction to the posibility of getting hit in the midsection. Just like when a receiver ducks his head when someone is lining up to hit him.

That and the fact that te rule states that incidental contact won't be called makes me leary. They aren't supposed to call incidental contact on DB's hitting receivers either but they clerly do.

Re: You make the call: Pollard v. Ridley, 2013 rules

Though he didn't lower his head in quite the same way as Ridley, what's to keep a running back or receiver who does what McGahee did in the '09 Divisional Round when confronted by Clark from being flagged?

As brutal a hit as that was, it wasn't a penalty. McGahee wasn't a "defenseless receiver." He'd established himself as a ball carrier and was able to defend himself. He tried to defend himself, and what he did contributed to his getting knocked out.

I think we're going to see a spate of knee injuries soon in the NFL as tacklers aim for the knees more.